Letter to Jane: An Investigation About a Still (1972) - full transcript
Letter to Jane (1972) is a postscript film to Tout va bien directed by Jean-Luc Godard and Jean-Pierre Gorin and made under the auspices of the Dziga Vertov Group. Narrated in a back-and-forth style by both Godard and Gorin, the film serves as a 52-minute cinematic essay that deconstructs a single news photograph of Jane Fonda in Vietnam. This was Godard and Gorin's final collaboration.
TUESDAY 3:00 P. M.
JEAN-LUC GODARD
For whom and against whom is a film
like Tout va bien made?
There are two recent films
that are similar
but which were made in different ways,
which I find interesting.
The two films are Coup pour coup,
which Marin Karmitz
shot with workers in Elbeuf,
and a film I made with Jean-Pierre Gorin
called Tout va bien.
One could say these two films aim
to fight for those who want change,
and in particular
for the core element,
which is the exploited, the oppressed,
represented in France by the men
and women of the working class.
TEN LINES LATER
Coup pour coup goes directly
to the textile workers of Elbeuf
and makes a film with them.
In my personal opinion,
he skips a step.
He thinks that we can listen directly
to what they have to say,
though they've been denied
a voice for so long,
and that we can be of use to them
with no problem.
We think there is a problem,
which is that the very medium we use
was, up until now, in the hands
of those we're fighting against.
Therefore, despite our good intentions,
we don't completely control it.
We think we're making a film
"in the service of,"
and it risks being
"to the detriment of."
We don't fully realize this.
In my opinion, in Tout va bien,
rather than
simply filming
female workers speaking,
or directing them -
The very word "direct" is loaded.
Today, who is directing France?
In my opinion, Pompidou and Marcellin.
Therefore, the way we direct,
even the way I direct in trying to fight
Pompidou and Marcellin,
the way I direct
is strongly conditioned,
because I was taught it in school,
even though I've left school.
So I have to find a way
to approach these people
and, most of all, to let them speak.
It's quite striking.
When workers are interviewed,
whether by a leftist like Rocard,
as on TV recently,
or by an ultraconservative like Fontanet,
on the TV show A Armes ?gales,
these people are given
15 brief seconds
when they haven't
opened their mouths all year.
We give them 15 seconds,
or even three minutes, to speak.
"What do you think of the strike?
What do you think of your lot in life?"
Who can answer
when he's had his mouth sewn shut?
Who can answer?
When intellectuals
have the means to make films,
since the working class doesn't,
we must approach them and listen
to be able to transmit their words.
We know they aren't allowed to speak,
neither in films nor on French TV.
LOCK UP THE BOSSES
INDEFINITE STRIKE
I tried to create images
that were simpler and less complicated,
precisely to show
just how complex the situation is.
It's a film about France in '72,
using a violent factory strike
to show the various
social forces present.
The three social forces in France
are the employers, like in this factory,
the unions,
and what we could call leftists,
the ones who are fed up.
It shows -
It shows the three social forces
in the same physical space.
Instead of first
describing the individuals,
it first describes the masses,
and the power struggle of the masses.
Because it's real.
It's what's happening in France.
It's a power struggle
between unions and employers...
and a sort of third force
that could be called
"those who are fed up."
The accusation is
often brought against us that,
"You want to make films
for the working class,
but they don't understand a thing."
I say it's not so simple.
First, it's normal,
seeing the way we make films,
that even a film with good intentions
might be considered
not very good.
I think our challenge
is not to make films
"in the name of."
That's one criticism
I have of Karmitz's film,
despite its qualities.
Rather than speaking "in the name of,"
we should first speak in our own name.
A worker who buys
a small movie camera or a still camera
and films his vacation
is making a political film.
That's what I call a political film.
That's the only film he can make.
It so happens that he's allowed
to film his vacation,
but strangely enough,
he's not allowed to film his work.
Cameras are forbidden,
as Edmond Maire proved on TV,
in factories, in the workplace.
The sacrosanct "right to work"
is an old clich? of French employers.
If I show up,
an informer, a filmmaker,
with my right to work
as a filmmaker, meaning to film,
there's hardly anywhere
I'm allowed to shoot.
Why? Because we live
under the reign of private property.
But I'm not even allowed
in so-called state-owned businesses.
I don't have the right
to film in the subway,
or in a museum, factory, or airport.
I don't have the right
to film in any of the places
that represent 80%
of productive activity in France.
What about my "right to work"?
Are you filming?
The exploiter never tells the exploited
how he's exploiting him.
So we tell.
It's precisely us, the news,
cinema, television, the press,
who enter this discourse of the exploiter
who does tell the exploited.
That's what cinema, novels,
the press and television do: They tell.
Those of us in this field
should find a new way to tell,
so that we might finally say
something else.
JEAN-LUC GODARD
For whom and against whom is a film
like Tout va bien made?
There are two recent films
that are similar
but which were made in different ways,
which I find interesting.
The two films are Coup pour coup,
which Marin Karmitz
shot with workers in Elbeuf,
and a film I made with Jean-Pierre Gorin
called Tout va bien.
One could say these two films aim
to fight for those who want change,
and in particular
for the core element,
which is the exploited, the oppressed,
represented in France by the men
and women of the working class.
TEN LINES LATER
Coup pour coup goes directly
to the textile workers of Elbeuf
and makes a film with them.
In my personal opinion,
he skips a step.
He thinks that we can listen directly
to what they have to say,
though they've been denied
a voice for so long,
and that we can be of use to them
with no problem.
We think there is a problem,
which is that the very medium we use
was, up until now, in the hands
of those we're fighting against.
Therefore, despite our good intentions,
we don't completely control it.
We think we're making a film
"in the service of,"
and it risks being
"to the detriment of."
We don't fully realize this.
In my opinion, in Tout va bien,
rather than
simply filming
female workers speaking,
or directing them -
The very word "direct" is loaded.
Today, who is directing France?
In my opinion, Pompidou and Marcellin.
Therefore, the way we direct,
even the way I direct in trying to fight
Pompidou and Marcellin,
the way I direct
is strongly conditioned,
because I was taught it in school,
even though I've left school.
So I have to find a way
to approach these people
and, most of all, to let them speak.
It's quite striking.
When workers are interviewed,
whether by a leftist like Rocard,
as on TV recently,
or by an ultraconservative like Fontanet,
on the TV show A Armes ?gales,
these people are given
15 brief seconds
when they haven't
opened their mouths all year.
We give them 15 seconds,
or even three minutes, to speak.
"What do you think of the strike?
What do you think of your lot in life?"
Who can answer
when he's had his mouth sewn shut?
Who can answer?
When intellectuals
have the means to make films,
since the working class doesn't,
we must approach them and listen
to be able to transmit their words.
We know they aren't allowed to speak,
neither in films nor on French TV.
LOCK UP THE BOSSES
INDEFINITE STRIKE
I tried to create images
that were simpler and less complicated,
precisely to show
just how complex the situation is.
It's a film about France in '72,
using a violent factory strike
to show the various
social forces present.
The three social forces in France
are the employers, like in this factory,
the unions,
and what we could call leftists,
the ones who are fed up.
It shows -
It shows the three social forces
in the same physical space.
Instead of first
describing the individuals,
it first describes the masses,
and the power struggle of the masses.
Because it's real.
It's what's happening in France.
It's a power struggle
between unions and employers...
and a sort of third force
that could be called
"those who are fed up."
The accusation is
often brought against us that,
"You want to make films
for the working class,
but they don't understand a thing."
I say it's not so simple.
First, it's normal,
seeing the way we make films,
that even a film with good intentions
might be considered
not very good.
I think our challenge
is not to make films
"in the name of."
That's one criticism
I have of Karmitz's film,
despite its qualities.
Rather than speaking "in the name of,"
we should first speak in our own name.
A worker who buys
a small movie camera or a still camera
and films his vacation
is making a political film.
That's what I call a political film.
That's the only film he can make.
It so happens that he's allowed
to film his vacation,
but strangely enough,
he's not allowed to film his work.
Cameras are forbidden,
as Edmond Maire proved on TV,
in factories, in the workplace.
The sacrosanct "right to work"
is an old clich? of French employers.
If I show up,
an informer, a filmmaker,
with my right to work
as a filmmaker, meaning to film,
there's hardly anywhere
I'm allowed to shoot.
Why? Because we live
under the reign of private property.
But I'm not even allowed
in so-called state-owned businesses.
I don't have the right
to film in the subway,
or in a museum, factory, or airport.
I don't have the right
to film in any of the places
that represent 80%
of productive activity in France.
What about my "right to work"?
Are you filming?
The exploiter never tells the exploited
how he's exploiting him.
So we tell.
It's precisely us, the news,
cinema, television, the press,
who enter this discourse of the exploiter
who does tell the exploited.
That's what cinema, novels,
the press and television do: They tell.
Those of us in this field
should find a new way to tell,
so that we might finally say
something else.